Esta postagem também está disponível em: English
I just answered a question in Quora and thought I’d reproduce it here. The question was: Whose fall from grace was worse: Tiger Woods or Lance Armstrong?
And my answer was:
I think they are both very different and bear a scary similarity.
The difference is obvious: Tiger Wood’s fall from grace has nothing to do with his accomplishments. It shouldn’t even be a matter of public disgrace weren’t if for the fact that public opinion reflects the conservative moral stands of the masses.
Lance Armstrong’s fall from grace is a sports political debate. It brings forth the “dirty secret” avoided by all high performance athletes that remain subservient to the WADA/IOC dictatorship, whose hands reach deep into public policy and corporate life. It is not expected from the public to understand that performance enhancing STRATEGIES, of which the pharmacological are just a part, have a long history and are part of the game. They have been brought to higher levels during the Cold War and haven’t subsided since because of the rise in sports investments in general.
Each one is a separate, sad discussion on the nature of hypocrisy.
What they bear in common has nothing to do with the athletes in question. Both falls reveal the sadistic, envious, hypocritical and conservative nature of public opinion, so easily manipulated by the media.
In other words, there’s nothing new about what these scandals “reaveal”: monogamy is just an agreement in a partnership and does not involve anyone else besides the partners. It is not good or bad – it is just a clause in a contract that unfortunately is sanctioned by the State and churches. Besides that, history seems to show that this is not the easiest clause to obey in such agreements. The guy hasn’t (as so many other billions haven’t). So what?
The other one has been juicing and denying it. What’s new here? EVERYBODY does it! By definition! If you don’t, then you’re out! And I mean it: if you don’t juice AND if you don’t deny it.
What may be new, and that depends on reactions, is exposing the hidden subjects in these matters: the “silent majority” and the institutions. I would love to see fragmentation become loud enough to be heard and scare the hell out of the crowds.”